Establishes a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be "dedicated to infringing activities." The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against the alleged infringer and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. In some cases, action could be taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to defend themselves in court.

To prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes.

The main goal of the act is to:


It all depends on the way that the final bill is worded because with enough ambiguity, the bill could be manipulated in many different ways to shut down any website with even one offence of copyright infringement. ie. A YouTube video being posted on a website.

And with the way that they have it worded now, they are mostly trying to prevent people from using sites which allow them to either view or download anything that is not "their" property. So, for example, the bill would allow the government to come after this Facebook because people post videos and pictures that are not technically theirs.

And what's wrong with that? If you have permission there should be no problem right? I don't think the government would come after Facebook because Joe User is posting something from one of his friends if that's what you're after. If Joe User is posting a video of something that he does not own, a copyrighted video, then this bill has served its purpose. It should be and is up to Facebook to remove such content. It would be Facebook's own fault if they don't comply and allow illegal material to be posted.

As a website owner myself having something like this is more incentive to run a completely legal operation.